Suggested game changes to create a more competitive game

20/02/16 01:29
Matt Grieve-Milne :

Thanks Mate, for replying. I get that people beat teams in friendly matches than get smashed in a competitive game, that isn't always because of my though, strat building bonus stars, ghost tactics or not the best players in starting team at time but overall mb is the cause.

The big guns have worked hard to get where they are today, but you don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, by that I mean taking away the mn before other changes are made will create a bigger monopoly for them, down in the bottom leagues people are quoting due to this, we just had a guild challenge where only 1 of the opposition challenged us, then checking all the teams in the guild only a couple had been actively playing.

How many players do you have in your squad Leicester? I've been part of a big time guild and I left yes it was due to some childish people and they ain't all the same I realise that so sorry if it came across that way.

In no way in black and white did I say I was unhappy, if I was I would say I'm not happy. So I came to a decision the developers won't change the game they are not listening to the game players and people have been insulting there nationality which is probably not helping lol I going to gevelop a new game and currently this game should be called the 6 nations as its being played like teams in the comp lol

Then why don't everyone brain storm together to make a fairer game instead of only crying out for a change that effects generally the big guns? That's my only gripe.


I only have 30 players in my squad, personally I can't be bothered to muck about with individual stratigies for loads of different players but some do, personally it doesn't fuss me too much.

Every guild is different and because you were unhappy at one doesn't mean all are the same. Lomus, for example, are very into there guild, gvg structure, and the development of each player in their squad, and that's cool. Brothers in arms not so much, we kind of just deal with guild challenges on a basis of you want to play you can play, it works for us, we haven't lost one yet.

I agree there are major changes that need to be made to the game, but if the top 10 wasn't define on fan base and say for example star rating, it would still look pretty similar because people who are at 140k have more time to focus on everything else. Also I have no idea how people are getting those silly amounts of recruiter points. I average 1k in 24 hours
20/02/16 01:49
Sorry if I come across I'm attacking individual guilds I'm not, and I don't propose any of this because of a bad experience in a guild. I'mmaking the big guns aware that by them complaining only about one issue will create a new inbalance in the game and I'm sticking up for the little guys to be honest as they are becoming less and less active then give up because they can't make head ways in the game. In another gvg we just played only 2 of the opposition actually played there 2 matches meaning 8 guys ain't playing (maybe they are away but not all 8) easy money and auction dollars but I like a challenge.

I believe it the guilds where ranked on ability or guild wins it would create more competitive guilds and new guilds would form from guys wanting to create their own to become the best this would create more competition would also incourage passing on of knowledge to others. Maybe the leader of a guild receive some sort of extra bonus for gvg wins likewise for right hand man, experienced and newbies. That would have guys wanting to move up the rankings in there guild to obtain more bonus's or go off and join another guild. Say 1 leader 4 right hand sides, and experienced and newbies no set number? Why not even have each guild challenge each other to define there ranking in there own gulid?

Also if the one sidedness of mb is removed then strategy buildings would become a bigger emphasis and that would create a imbalance in the game again and that would generally only favour the big guns and then everyone would start crying foul again.

Some of the big guns should listen to the little guys while there are still some left as you'll soon kill the game and find playing against ghost sides boring and brainstorm to make a even competitive playing field. Make a detailed report to send to the developers that would still appeal to them business wise then they may start listening if they don't they in time will lose a profitable game, the other approach is to contact Apple or google and raise your concerns as they also make money from supplying this game to us for them....
20/02/16 08:54
Matt Grieve-Milne :

Sorry if I come across I'm attacking individual guilds I'm not, and I don't propose any of this because of a bad experience in a guild. I'mmaking the big guns aware that by them complaining only about one issue will create a new inbalance in the game and I'm sticking up for the little guys to be honest as they are becoming less and less active then give up because they can't make head ways in the game. In another gvg we just played only 2 of the opposition actually played there 2 matches meaning 8 guys ain't playing (maybe they are away but not all 8) easy money and auction dollars but I like a challenge.

I believe it the guilds where ranked on ability or guild wins it would create more competitive guilds and new guilds would form from guys wanting to create their own to become the best this would create more competition would also incourage passing on of knowledge to others. Maybe the leader of a guild receive some sort of extra bonus for gvg wins likewise for right hand man, experienced and newbies. That would have guys wanting to move up the rankings in there guild to obtain more bonus's or go off and join another guild. Say 1 leader 4 right hand sides, and experienced and newbies no set number? Why not even have each guild challenge each other to define there ranking in there own gulid?

Also if the one sidedness of mb is removed then strategy buildings would become a bigger emphasis and that would create a imbalance in the game again and that would generally only favour the big guns and then everyone would start crying foul again.

Some of the big guns should listen to the little guys while there are still some left as you'll soon kill the game and find playing against ghost sides boring and brainstorm to make a even competitive playing field. Make a detailed report to send to the developers that would still appeal to them business wise then they may start listening if they don't they in time will lose a profitable game, the other approach is to contact Apple or google and raise your concerns as they also make money from supplying this game to us for them....


If the guilds are ranked on ability/guild performance you run the risk of making the guilds even more elitist The original point of the guilds was to help each other with heal kits and tactics etc but teams will get kicked simply because they not good enough to be in a certain guild. Currently most guilds want teams to be active but if ranked on performance then that will change so that teams have to have certain star ratings before they can join a guild.

I get requests to join top guilds at the moment but this would change as my team rating is between 10-20* less than the "big guns" but if the way the guilds are ranked changed then teams like mine would be asked anymore.
20/02/16 10:12
Not the case, the big guns play up and comers to see what there like before they consider asking them into a gulid. Guilds would keep helping each other as they would want everyone in there guild playing as well as they can to keep a good ranking. People still get booted now from guilds so it wouldn't change that at all. Simon I mentioned a intra Gould comp in another thread did you pick up the ball and run with it?
23/02/16 09:46
lol think you will find if you beat them in friendly and then they beat you by a ton in comp. they shell out a load to win that game and you were to up your own ass to add match b or you were to tight .. just add coin to mb and you have no problem .. at least the bigger guy does not need to shell out as much
23/02/16 15:51
Cayden here

I've built a large amount of recruiter points through trading .. Especially in the lower leagues when you could regularly pick up good players for relatively few coins... For example I picked up a winger at 18 with training stats of 189% at level 30... I train my players intensively four times a day and I sold this same player aged 26 for 27,000 recruiter coins.. By that time I had trained him up to about level 80 I think?..

Anyway I made a small fortune in buying players and then selling them.. I'd always pick up the ones that weren't selling with 30 mins left , buy them cheap and could literally put them back on market a day or two later and make a profit of up to 1k per player

It's harder to do this in higher leagues as less players competing for a smaller pool group, plus the players available aren't of the same quality as they were so younger players do go for a high premium now

My squad size is large as I just want to train the young players I have up to the level of my current first team with the intention of them selling the first team player for a decent amount... I would rather sacrifice game money in terms of playing more player wages than have to worry about replenishing my squad without the required recruiter coins.. I currently have nearly 320k of them so it does make it easier to bid for the good young players out there
23/02/16 16:08
Some of the ideas you mentioned are good though, reduced squad sizes , limited subs and even a salary cap are all things that would make game more competive

I think mb impact should be reduced but not removed... If teams want to spend money on winning games as opposed to upgrading facilities that is there choice but in long run they will find themselves falling behind.. Trick is to use mb wisely and only when required...

Also I think gvg matches should be structured... I find myself getting challenged at 3am when I'm offline by a guy sporting a huge match bonus, 13 subs and max rhythm .. I think the matches should be at set times so both teams can respond at make changes during game time... Either that or a feature that allows pre determined changes in a match